2019 Co-Captains: Kennedy, Parker and Rampe

[RobbieK]

My point was he should have been offered. Its called respect.

And your evidence that the club did not discuss Franklin's leadership aspirations with him is...?

My point is that captain committees (an absurd non-sequitur outside of trendy management speak) are symptomatic of a bigger problem If the purpose of a group captaincy is to improve the relationship between the players then the solution is with the coach.
It cant be an on field direction problem as we had a captain of wonderful leadership pedigree, a pointing half back flank general of Erich von Manstein capability according to some here and a runner FFS. And the most inspirational footballer to play in a generation to lift the kids off his own boot. How much direction do these players need? The fact is Longmire is a micro manager directional coach. The little p###k that coaches Hawthorn summed it up tersely when he explained to the cowered media the difference between a systems coach and a directions coach. Systems coaches allow the players to innovate within an expansive game plan. Direction coaches try to micro manage on the field within a restrictive game plan.
My conclusion is Longmire is inadequate either by personality or will in communicating effectively with a young group of players.
My killer point is that Longmire should go as early as can be decently and contractually arranged if he cant adequately and effectively communicate with his players that the club has recruited. Great or even good coaches don't need interlocutors in the dressing sheds.
For the ostrich faction I make no apologies for another Longmire critique. He's on 800,000 a year and I am on the pension, following the club for the last heart breaking and exhilarating 68 years. I have a right.

You have the right. It doesn't mean you are right.

How much direction do the players need? The game has changed. The era of Tommy Hafey-style "just kick it long up the guts" football is long gone. The game gets more tactical each year and there is increasing amounts of analysis and planning that goes in to the preparation for a match.

The role of a captain is varied (as an earlier post I made pointed out). You have latched on to one of those roles, being a conduit between the coach and playing group, and for some reason have now apparently made this the key purpose of the role. Why? I have no idea. Well, I have one idea, and that is because you don't like Longmire and it allows you to shoehorn that in to this discussion.

To argue that Longmire is a directional rather than a systems coach is frankly ridiculous. I mean, I spent the whole of this season listening to how he was too rigid about his systems and wasn't willing or able to make changes through the game... It is clear that he coaches this team to a very specific system. The idea that "systems coaches allow players to innovate within an expansive game plan" reflects a total misunderstanding of what systems mean in modern football. There is nothing necessarily expansive about a system and they are much more defined by their restrictions on player decision making (that is, players have very specific roles and being encourage to make specific decisions in specific situations) than by their latitude for individual brilliance. Just because you don't like the system, or indeed just because the systems weren't consistently played well this season, doesn't mean that Longmire is not a system coach.

It is possible that you are right, that Longmire isn't the person to take this group forward to the next level. But none of the reasons you present for holding that belief justify it.

 

[caesar88]

My point was he should have been offered. Its called respect.

You are jumping to conclusions here. It's entirely possible he was offered but like I said all signs point to Buddy having zero interest in that kind of role. He likes his privacy and is not a great public speaker. But may I offer the flip-side perspective to your argument that his brilliance should automatically make him captain material?

We can all sit back and admire how much of a superstar he is, but that's because he plays arrogant footy because he knows he's a freakish talent. That kind of a player we all love as spectators, but it may be different for the players out there on the ground with him. For example I think having a leader like JPK or Parker would resonate a lot more with a hard-working, toiling type like George Hewett or Jordan Dawson. Sir Dane and his triumphant story of working his arse off to get onto an AFL list may resonate more with a Ben Ronke or Jake Lloyd, who were taken as rookies. Captains are often best when they're the every-man who may not be the most gifted but gets the absolute best out of themselves, and inspires his peers to do the same.

With no disrespect intended, Buddy's had a privileged career from the beginning. Top 5 pick, played 20 games in his first season, ridiculous talent, historic achievements, on massive bucks, with other businesses to the side to make even more $ and keep his brand thriving. The truth is he has had it very easy in this sport because of his enormous talent. It's meant he can play games on the back of minimal training all year - no one else could do that. It's meant he can have an average game and turn it around with a 60m goal off one step, or slot one from the boundary line on the run with ease - no one else could do that. It's meant he's been an automatic selection since day one of his career and played without the fear of losing his spot - few others could do that. It's meant he can play out the rest of his career knowing he'll be earning a million bucks a year - no one else can enjoy that.

He deserves it all because he's been a quality bloke and a great player but if I am, say, Ryan Clarke right now, and I'm looking for inspiration, I'm not looking at the historic superstar, I'm looking at Josh Kennedy, another bloke who was ousted from his original club only to carve out a brilliant career with his second chance. If I'm Isaac Heeney, a former rugby player who plays with rugby traits, I'm looking at Luke Parker, the toughest and most willing to have his head ripped off in the contest. Our boys always say that playing alongside Buddy makes them stand taller, but that's a vicarious quality, it's nothing Buddy is doing directly to inspire that confidence. How could he instil discipline and training standards and determination and perseverance and fitness standards and team structures and impart his wisdom on these things to his younger peers, when he's the rare individual who's probably never needed to comply by them throughout his career?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Good points Caesar. However the mail I have received dating back to his Dawk days is that Buddy loves training and works hard at his fitness and honing his talents. As you say he is a quiet fellow and not comfortable in media street. Beyond his partner, a bit like Plugger, Buddy found Sydney attractive because there was less of a public eye on him.

Not everyone needs to be captain to be a leader. Every game he plays you can see him expressing himself as a leader.

I have no doubt if Buddy wished to be a formal leader he would be. There is no evidence to suggest that he wants to be.

 

[connolly]

You are jumping to conclusions here. It's entirely possible he was offered but like I said all signs point to Buddy having zero interest in that kind of role. He likes his privacy and is not a great public speaker. But may I offer the flip-side perspective to your argument that his brilliance should automatically make him captain material?

We can all sit back and admire how much of a superstar he is, but that's because he plays arrogant footy because he knows he's a freakish talent. That kind of a player we all love as spectators, but it may be different for the players out there on the ground with him. For example I think having a leader like JPK or Parker would resonate a lot more with a hard-working, toiling type like George Hewett or Jordan Dawson. Sir Dane and his triumphant story of working his arse off to get onto an AFL list may resonate more with a Ben Ronke or Jake Lloyd, who were taken as rookies. Captains are often best when they're the every-man who may not be the most gifted but gets the absolute best out of themselves, and inspires his peers to do the same.

With no disrespect intended, Buddy's had a privileged career from the beginning. Top 5 pick, played 20 games in his first season, ridiculous talent, historic achievements, on massive bucks, with other businesses to the side to make even more $ and keep his brand thriving. The truth is he has had it very easy in this sport because of his enormous talent. It's meant he can play games on the back of minimal training all year - no one else could do that. It's meant he can have an average game and turn it around with a 60m goal off one step, or slot one from the boundary line on the run with ease - no one else could do that. It's meant he's been an automatic selection since day one of his career and played without the fear of losing his spot - few others could do that. It's meant he can play out the rest of his career knowing he'll be earning a million bucks a year - no one else can enjoy that.

He deserves it all because he's been a quality bloke and a great player but if I am, say, Ryan Clarke right now, and I'm looking for inspiration, I'm not looking at the historic superstar, I'm looking at Josh Kennedy, another bloke who was ousted from his original club only to carve out a brilliant career with his second chance. If I'm Isaac Heeney, a former rugby player who plays with rugby traits, I'm looking at Luke Parker, the toughest and most willing to have his head ripped off in the contest. Our boys always say that playing alongside Buddy makes them stand taller, but that's a vicarious quality, it's nothing Buddy is doing directly to inspire that confidence. How could he instil discipline and training standards and determination and perseverance and fitness standards and team structures and impart his wisdom on these things to his younger peers, when he's the rare individual who's probably never needed to comply by them throughout his career?

This is my bell lap. It is absurd to have a committee of captains, a fad of recent football managerialism, whilst the team is being literally inspired on the field by a player of brilliance and instinctive genius. I gather Longmire doesn't read Jean-Paul. Hobbes no doubt.

 

[connolly]

Good points Caesar. However the mail I have received dating back to his Dawk days is that Buddy loves training and works hard at his fitness and honing his talents. As you say he is a quiet fellow and not comfortable in media street. Beyond his partner, a bit like Plugger, Buddy found Sydney attractive because there was less of a public eye on him.

Not everyone needs to be captain to be a leader. Every game he plays you can see him expressing himself as a leader.

I have no doubt if Buddy wished to be a formal leader he would be. There is no evidence to suggest that he wants to be.

If his partner is a bit like Plugger sign the baby up now.

 

[RobbieK]

This is my bell lap. It is absurd to have a committee of captains, a fad of recent football managerialism, whilst the team is being literally inspired on the field by a player of brilliance and instinctive genius. I gather Longmire doesn't read Jean-Paul. Hobbes no doubt.

It is absurd to have a committee of players taking on a role that has more to do with things off the field than it has to do with things on the field because we have a very good player on the field? There is absurdity in what you say... it just isn't where you think it is.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

If his partner is a bit like Plugger sign the baby up now.

hahahahaha .... you'd be hoping for twins. The more solid one would play ff and the other would play chf.

 

[bungee]

You are jumping to conclusions here. It's entirely possible he was offered but like I said all signs point to Buddy having zero interest in that kind of role. He likes his privacy and is not a great public speaker. But may I offer the flip-side perspective to your argument that his brilliance should automatically make him captain material?

We can all sit back and admire how much of a superstar he is, but that's because he plays arrogant footy because he knows he's a freakish talent. That kind of a player we all love as spectators, but it may be different for the players out there on the ground with him. For example I think having a leader like JPK or Parker would resonate a lot more with a hard-working, toiling type like George Hewett or Jordan Dawson. Sir Dane and his triumphant story of working his arse off to get onto an AFL list may resonate more with a Ben Ronke or Jake Lloyd, who were taken as rookies. Captains are often best when they're the every-man who may not be the most gifted but gets the absolute best out of themselves, and inspires his peers to do the same.

With no disrespect intended, Buddy's had a privileged career from the beginning. Top 5 pick, played 20 games in his first season, ridiculous talent, historic achievements, on massive bucks, with other businesses to the side to make even more $ and keep his brand thriving. The truth is he has had it very easy in this sport because of his enormous talent. It's meant he can play games on the back of minimal training all year - no one else could do that. It's meant he can have an average game and turn it around with a 60m goal off one step, or slot one from the boundary line on the run with ease - no one else could do that. It's meant he's been an automatic selection since day one of his career and played without the fear of losing his spot - few others could do that. It's meant he can play out the rest of his career knowing he'll be earning a million bucks a year - no one else can enjoy that.

He deserves it all because he's been a quality bloke and a great player but if I am, say, Ryan Clarke right now, and I'm looking for inspiration, I'm not looking at the historic superstar, I'm looking at Josh Kennedy, another bloke who was ousted from his original club only to carve out a brilliant career with his second chance. If I'm Isaac Heeney, a former rugby player who plays with rugby traits, I'm looking at Luke Parker, the toughest and most willing to have his head ripped off in the contest. Our boys always say that playing alongside Buddy makes them stand taller, but that's a vicarious quality, it's nothing Buddy is doing directly to inspire that confidence. How could he instil discipline and training standards and determination and perseverance and fitness standards and team structures and impart his wisdom on these things to his younger peers, when he's the rare individual who's probably never needed to comply by them throughout his career?

A really well written piece Caesar. Probably the most persuasive and balanced arguments on the matter that I've read. I love that a fan can produce such insights. Your post is far more compelling than the swill we are served up from many so-called footy journos.

 

[bungee]

Nod also to Robbie K for remaining objective and balanced but also respectful of others' opinions. Something I'm not always guilty of.

 

[bungee]

And you too Connolly. I don't agree with some of your opinions, especially those regarding Horse, but I appreciate that you lay your agruments out in detail and you put some real effort into your posts. It's talented and impassioned posters like these who keep me coming back to read the Swans news and views right here on this board.

 

[connolly]

And your evidence that the club did not discuss Franklin's leadership aspirations with him is...?



You have the right. It doesn't mean you are right.

How much direction do the players need? The game has changed. The era of Tommy Hafey-style "just kick it long up the guts" football is long gone. The game gets more tactical each year and there is increasing amounts of analysis and planning that goes in to the preparation for a match.

The role of a captain is varied (as an earlier post I made pointed out). You have latched on to one of those roles, being a conduit between the coach and playing group, and for some reason have now apparently made this the key purpose of the role. Why? I have no idea. Well, I have one idea, and that is because you don't like Longmire and it allows you to shoehorn that in to this discussion.

To argue that Longmire is a directional rather than a systems coach is frankly ridiculous. I mean, I spent the whole of this season listening to how he was too rigid about his systems and wasn't willing or able to make changes through the game... It is clear that he coaches this team to a very specific system. The idea that "systems coaches allow players to innovate within an expansive game plan" reflects a total misunderstanding of what systems mean in modern football. There is nothing necessarily expansive about a system and they are much more defined by their restrictions on player decision making (that is, players have very specific roles and being encourage to make specific decisions in specific situations) than by their latitude for individual brilliance. Just because you don't like the system, or indeed just because the systems weren't consistently played well this season, doesn't mean that Longmire is not a system coach.

It is possible that you are right, that Longmire isn't the person to take this group forward to the next level. But none of the reasons you present for holding that belief justify it.

.
I don't have any evidence it was offered. However, if it was, out of respect to the AA captain and to a great player, maybe the small army of spin doctors we employ could cobble together a press release to say something like - "Our great champion Lance Franklin out of respect to him as AA captain, a great player and a man, was today offered captaincy of the Bloods. Lance graciously declined the offer and expressed his appreciation of the gesture of the club. Lance Franklin is a true Blood and stands alongside our pantheon of great players of Nash, Mathews, Goldsmith, Clegg, Skilton, Goodes and Kelly." Or something like that. If it wasn't offered its a disgrace.
Football coaches at the elite level have always been divided between systems and directional coaches. Illustrated by the story of the formidable Reg Hickey who coached Geelong into the 1951 Grand Final. His most brilliant player Bob Davis was given detailed instructions of what to do at the centre bounce and told to follow them to the letter. Davis by the way was one of the famous players South Melbourne rejected. He was a South supporter as a kid but was told he wasn't good enpugh by some footballing genius at a pre-season try out. Davis fast and dynamic was known to paste inspirational messages into the inside of his boots such as "Go Out And Kill Em" was tutored in the week before the big game in regard to his tactical role. Just before the team ran out on the MCG Hickey pulled the Geelong Flyer aside and said "Now Bobby what do have to do today" to which the great man replied "Go out and kill em Reg". Davis went on to become a great systems coach because he coached not by instructions and let his admittedly very talented list of players express their individual qualities and brilliance within a generalised set of principles. It was Davis that allowed Farmer to use handball in rucking contests to open up the play and revolutionise the game. An expansive game plan is a necessary part of systems coaching because within a systems approach players are trusted to innovate, rely on their own decision making and take the initiative. Does any of this apply to the way Longmire allows his players to play? If it does i must have dozed off while the ball was being chip passed up the boundary line. My criticism of Longmire is two-fold in that he over-coaches and on the circumstantial evidence actually stifles the instinctive game and individuality of his players in a rigid application of his defensive game strategy. So now we have three captains on the field, a director of play on the half back flank and a runner. I believe that Longmire has gone for more on field captaincy due to restrictions on the runner next season. As for the off field stuff of the captains role that has diminished over time. The club employs a small army of spin doctors, media wide boys and BS artists. Anyway that's my humbled opinion, hope you have a good new year and we take out the premiership and you can really call me a goose.

 

[kelpie_X]

Hodge was a great captain because of the way he played. Not the way he spoke. Put his body on the line and did the tough things. That kind of captain through guts or sheer brilliance lifts teams. We have an AA captain who is brilliant and inspiring on the field. The captaincy by committee is BS. Does that clear it up?

Dunno about anyone else, but that type of person is who I want to rally for. Just sayin'

 

[caesar88]

Good points Caesar. However the mail I have received dating back to his Dawk days is that Buddy loves training and works hard at his fitness and honing his talents. As you say he is a quiet fellow and not comfortable in media street. Beyond his partner, a bit like Plugger, Buddy found Sydney attractive because there was less of a public eye on him.

Not everyone needs to be captain to be a leader. Every game he plays you can see him expressing himself as a leader.

I have no doubt if Buddy wished to be a formal leader he would be. There is no evidence to suggest that he wants to be.

Of course Bud is fully invested in all of those things, but he doesn't need to be, as proven this year when he his training and fitness was incredibly restricted yet he was still a dominant force. He's in a realm of his own in terms of fitness and talent and it just puts him on a pedestal that doesn't make for ideal captain material. I look at Michael Voss as a good example. He's the best captain I've seen in my lifetime, not because he was freakishly talented, but he was relentless with his ability to get the best out of himself. There was never anything that fancy about him, but he just played basically the same brilliant and tough game week in, week out. Guarantee the majority of that output was the result of his work on the training track in the off-season and mid-week, because he was far from the most naturally gifted player.

That to me is the benchmark for a captain, someone who can become a superstar by willing themselves to be one, not by just being born a freak of nature.

 

[caesar88]

This is my bell lap. It is absurd to have a committee of captains, a fad of recent football managerialism, whilst the team is being literally inspired on the field by a player of brilliance and instinctive genius. I gather Longmire doesn't read Jean-Paul. Hobbes no doubt.

I'll admit I'm unsure about the three captains, if only because it's rather unconventional in the competition so there's not much precedence for us to be excited about. But there's also not much precedence for us to be panicking about either. I think it's a case of wait and see how things unfold before jumping to conclusions at either end of the spectrum. There are reasons for and against the committee of captains. There are positives to it as well but we seem to only want to be focusing on the potential negatives.

 

[connolly]

Of course Bud is fully invested in all of those things, but he doesn't need to be, as proven this year when he his training and fitness was incredibly restricted yet he was still a dominant force. He's in a realm of his own in terms of fitness and talent and it just puts him on a pedestal that doesn't make for ideal captain material. I look at Michael Voss as a good example. He's the best captain I've seen in my lifetime, not because he was freakishly talented, but he was relentless with his ability to get the best out of himself. There was never anything that fancy about him, but he just played basically the same brilliant and tough game week in, week out. Guarantee the majority of that output was the result of his work on the training track in the off-season and mid-week, because he was far from the most naturally gifted player.

That to me is the benchmark for a captain, someone who can become a superstar by willing themselves to be one, not by just being born a freak of nature.

With all due respect to Voss he is not is the same class as Franklin. Very good player but Franklin is one of the greats. As a centre half forward he is only matched for brilliance by Daryl Baldock, who by the way captained St Kilda to its only premiership. The only man to retire from Parliament to become an AFL coach. Tragically suffered a stroke after a promising start to his coaching career. He is rated as a Legend as Franklin should be. I think some people really don't accord the due status to Franklin. We are really fortunate to have a legend playing for us. He is not just some highly paid mercenary who can boot a 60 metre goal.

 

[caesar88]

With all due respect to Voss he is not is the same class as Franklin. Very good player but Franklin is one of the greats. As a centre half forward he is only matched for brilliance by Daryl Baldock, who by the way captained St Kilda to its only premiership. The only man to retire from Parliament to become an AFL coach. Tragically suffered a stroke after a promising start to his coaching career. He is rated as a Legend as Franklin should be. I think some people really don't accord the due status to Franklin. We are really fortunate to have a legend playing for us. He is not just some highly paid mercenary who can boot a 60 metre goal.

I never said Voss was in the same class as Buddy. I said Buddy is in a league of his own in his generation and even earlier. But I did say Voss was the best captain I've ever seen, in terms of leading by example and getting the best out of his peers. And I think there's a difference between captain material and legend material. Voss is the former, Buddy is the latter.

 

[connolly]

I never said Voss was in the same class as Buddy. I said Buddy is in a league of his own in his generation and even earlier. But I did say Voss was the best captain I've ever seen, in terms of leading by example and getting the best out of his peers. And I think there's a difference between captain material and legend material. Voss is the former, Buddy is the latter.

Voss was a sledging racist. He vilified a young Adam Goodes. I don't think he was a great captain or person. He was an apprentice of the thug who coached them at the time. And later a total failure as a coach. Have to disagree with you on this one.

 

[The King!]

Given Franklin's stature and performances, and the fact he's never had involvement in the leadership groups of Sydney or Hawthorn (IIRC) the reasonable conclusion would probably be that he has no aspirations to be a leader in an official capacity.

I didn’t want to be the greatest poster on this board, but sometimes things are thrust upon us

 

[bungee]

The co-captains were inspirational at the weekend. OK, Rampe had a brain fade at the end but his game was inspirational. I'm relieved to see Kennedy getting some help from carrying the sole captaincy in such a young team. It's rejuvenated him.

 

[caesar88]

The co-captains were inspirational at the weekend. OK, Rampe had a brain fade at the end but his game was inspirational. I'm relieved to see Kennedy getting some help from carrying the sole captaincy in such a young team. It's rejuvenated him.

Agree totally here bungee. It's no coincidence that we won, and so many youngsters contributed to that win, in the game where our leaders stood up and led the way. All three of them had their best games of the year just about on the weekend. Sure, a few struggled, like Papley and Florent and Heeney, but I genuinely think it was more to do with the way the game played out. Not much space and not many ground balls for the likes of Paps and O-Flo to really shine (as opposed to plenty of long air-balls that favoured McCartin, Dawson, Blakey etc), and Heeney definitely looked laboured. But the rest of our youngsters seemed more confident than they'd looked all year because our leaders just set example after example for them.

I've said it all year while the go-to response after each loss has been to blame/bash the youngsters. You can be as talented a kid as you like but sometimes, in your first, second, third or even fourth year, you're only going to be as good as your leaders. Friday night was a glimpse of what our young talent can be when their leaders are very, very good.